Wi-Fi and Wi-Max: Rural Mexico's Last Train to Development

Adriana Labardini is an attorney, who graduated from the Escuela Libre de Derecho in Mexico City. She wrote her thesis in 1987, on legal and regulatory aspects of satellite communications just after Mexico launched "Morelos" the nation's first communications satellites. Labardini earned a Master in Laws degree from Columbia University as a Fulbright Scholar, became a telecommunications and corporate lawyer but gravitated to regulatory issues. In 1999 she was appointed secretary of the Board of the Mexican Federal Telecommunications Commission. She is now a practicing attorney and ICT for development consultant. A previous article about her: "Mexico Connects: Policy and Rural Broadband" is available online.

U.N Millennium Development Goal 8 says: "In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially ICT. There is a general agreement that Internet access is a key success factor for development."

Laos, Bangladesh, India, Cambodia, Ecuador, Brazil and other developing countries around the world are succeeding in empowering rural people through the use of wireless high-speed Internet, affordable cell phones, telecenters, training, micro financing, community programs and entrepreneurship, to help eradicate poverty and improve quality of life.

Information technology-based programs are varied in nature, ownership, scope and budget, but when it comes to connecting remote villages never reached by wired infrastructure, the respective governments/regulators have in common the recognition -- through visionary policy and law construction -- that innovative wireless technologies need a fresher, less theological approach to spectrum use. These technologies -- mainly Wi-Fi and Wi-Max -- can bring affordable, high-speed Internet access to isolated, rural areas. Spectrum is now a more abundant and sharable resource due to technological progress.

A Home in Rural Mexico

Sadly, Mexico has not yet recognized the need for a fresh look at spectrum use and regulation.

While there are huge business opportunities in "doing well by doing good," what is most important about these so-called disruptive technologies is eradication of poverty, unemployment and isolation through the use of innovative, low-cost information technologies and access infrastructures. It is about empowering more than 50 million Mexicans who live in poverty to find a sustainable livelihood, through access to important information on crop prices, microfinancing, distribution channels, efficient and less-costly remittance systems, health information and communication with their migrant relatives.

It is, in a nutshell, about building an entrepreneurial economy for millions of creative, ingenious and uneducated human beings who just need an opportunity to learn, to create, to be productive and independent.

Neglecting or opposing the use of such new technologies is not only immoral but suicidal as a nation, and contrary to the long-term business interests of the same telecomm carriers who paradoxically oppose any connectivity efforts using what is known as "unlicensed spectrum." The results? An Internet penetration of only 14 million users among a global population of over 103 million Mexicans.

Are government officials aware of the implications of such an omission and if so, has anyone made a feasible proposal to start changing the status quo within the imperfect, shortsighted Mexican legal framework? A thousand and one reasons why Wi-Fi and VoIP cannot "fly" right now, given legal constraints, are voiced by opponents and regulators still in love with auctioning spectrum without sound foundations.

A sustainable rural connectivity project with a grassroots community development plan could fly using free spectrum to reduce costs of broadband access. Innovative wireless technologies that make high speed Internet access available at affordable prices -- especially in remote areas, where wire-line telephones never came true -- can be a win-win solution.

What is needed is a harmonic interpretation of domestic and international law, through which a sound case may be built for use of free spectrum and consequently for Wi-Fi technologies aimed at rural development projects. The needs and undeveloped potential of underprivileged citizens should be of primary concern, beyond short-term government and corporate interests.

Millions of fellow Mexicans -- who live in conditions you wouldn't even imagine in the 21st century -- are worth some creative thinking.

This is not meant to be a public policy proposal on spectrum planning, which is badly needed and will be the subject of a future article. Certainly, the Federal Telecommunications Act urgently needs revision and a visionary public policy on spectrum, broadband, ICTs for the Information Society and the Millennium Goals, all of which have been missing for some time. Legislative reform is not an option at the federal level in this administration. So we must play with the playing cards we have.

The Current Mexican Legal Framework
Which law allegedly prohibits use of free spectrum, mainly 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz. where the IEEE 802.11b, 802.11a and 802.16 standards work on a secondary basis to provide high-speed Internet access?

The Federal Telecommunications Act (LFT), enacted in 1995, provides that use of radio electric spectrum is classified in four main categories. (LFT, section 10. Section 14 provides for those bands in category 2, that they shall be assigned through a public bid. The federal government may request a given amount in consideration for the frequency band assignment. This has been construed as an auction.) These four categories are:

• Free use, that is, such bands used freely by the general public without any license, permit or filing requirements.
• Spectrum used for specific ("determined") purposes, (commercially, it is understood), under a license and aimed at the provision of specific services as authorized by the competent agency. Licenses here are auctioned.
• Spectrum for official use, that is, frequency bands assigned to federal, state and municipal governments.
• Spectrum for experimental use, to test new technologies, under a special short-term license without auction procedure.

The general argument from regulators is that it can't authorize Wi-Fi systems as free spectrum because under the Telecomm Act all commercial use of spectrum must be allocated through a bidding process under LFT's article 14, and doesn't qualify as free spectrum anyway, because spread spectrum used for communication purposes would be subject to a number of rules that would not make it actually free. Good try, but not an accurate interpretation. One must dig deeper to get at the root of the problem.

The Constitution
Constitutionally, no reference is made to spectrum or its use. Section 27 only provides that [air] space is the nation's property, and as such is subject to federal jurisdiction, may not be alienated, is not subject to a statute of limitations and cannot be attached as private property can be.

Two other constitutional provisions, actually among Mexico's "Bill of Rights" are closely related and support free use of spectrum for rural development , although these have not been considered by officials as relevant to this cause.

Article 2, recently amended, refers to equal opportunity rights for indigenous communities and requires federal, state and municipal governments to implement such rights and remove any discriminatory practice, establish institutions and policies necessary to warrant those rights and promote regional development of people and villages.

Among the "bridging the gap" duties of all three levels of authority are:

• Foster development of indigenous communities to strengthen their local economies, improve living conditions through inclusive procedures.
• Improve education programs, health services, housing and other basic services.
• Broaden the communications network which

• • enables the integration of these communities through deployment of telecommunications infrastructure. Provide the conditions so that these indigenous communities may acquire and run communications media pursuant to the applicable laws.
  • Support productivity and sustainable development of indigenous communities through actions that may lead to livelihoods, increasing investments resulting in employment, use of technology in production and distribution chains.
  These duties should be considered by telecomm regulators whenever they postpone the issue and consider that they were introduced long after the LFT was enacted, and given its hierarchy, the constitutional provision shall prevail.
  
  Another extremely important provision is article 6 of the Constitution, which refers to freedom of speech and right to information. It states that the "state shall guarantee this latter right." Internet access is access to information. If the Web is the only realistic hope of a remote villager to access public information and communication, and if Web access is stifled by huge fees for such connectivity, due to the price of spectrum licenses, then that constitutional right is de facto suppressed.
  
  The huge user fees occur because an access provider had to pay a fortune for licensed spectrum to get a wireless connection, when under current smart radio technologies (software-defined radio) exclusive rights may be substituted for a shared-use approach, which in turn has long been recognized by the ITU Radiocommunications Regulations. (RR).
  
  International Law
  According to the Mexican Constitution, international law is part of domestic law, as section 133 provides that the Constitution, its federal laws and those international treaties -- as ratified by the Senate -- are the supreme law of the land.
  
  Pursuant to the RR a single frequency band may be designated for several services. This categorization of services backed up by technologies such as spread spectrum, allows for frequency band sharing, resulting in less scarcity and an efficient use of spectrum.
  
  Section 5.23 RR provides that radio communication services are classified as primary and secondary. A primary service is protected from interference from secondary services. However, a secondary service must bear interference from a primary service. This is an example of how technological progress backed up by adequate regulations becomes a success story.
  
  The above classification does not have to do with the nature of the user or the purpose of spectrum use. Consequently it does not conflict with article 10 of the LFT. Moreover, it is mandatory and part of the Mexican legal framework. In addition, pursuant to the National Chart of Frequencies Allocation (See Cuadro Nacional de Atribuci